Slashdot Mirror
How About a Nice Game of Global Thermonuclear War?
Loconut1389 writes "According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon has a revised doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks would give the president the authority for a preemptive nuclear strike. I would hope that this is a move designed to say we mean business and then never use it, but the means is there for mutual assured destruction."
My original submission was early this morning and also had a few extras like "Doesnt anybody remember the W.O.P.R.?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Yes, because pre-emptive strikes have worked so well in this country before. Oh, wait a minute...
...scientists today believe they have finally solved the Fermi paradox. "Where are the aliens? Dead, all dead, in piles of radioactive rubble."
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
A preemptive nukular strike, sir.
TLoM: Nerds + DDR + Rednecks for the win!
printable version, all one page
coral cache
Of course, since W's administration doesn't seem to think the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on, this won't stop them.
And Congress doesn't seem to hold it in any higher regard these days. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, not the power to issue an "authorization of force".
There are at leat 19-20 countries with some kind of nuclear program, of which at least 6-8 have a full long-range nuclear capability. Wiki Has some interesting information on that one. Just because USSR is gone doesnt mean that all their tech has dropped off the face of the earth.
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
Err... anything else dumb.
What's that? We had that opportunity? November 2004, you say? Oops.
The president already has the authority to launch a pre-emptive strike.* What the article is about is a new policy statement by the US (i.e. an international "FYI") about when the president will haul off and nuke something
*This, like the policy discussed in the article, depends on the situation being one where the President doesn't have to wait for Congress to declare war.
The arguments for pre-empting action can be made long and hard, but in the case of nuclear weapons it just seems like a bad decision. The sheer destruction of these payloads, and devastating after effects they cause are not something that (in my opinion) be used without fully justified action. There's literally just too much at stake for the world community as a whole.
Business Voyeur
(Me? Cynical?)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
As long as no other country builds an automatic retaliation system without telling us. I wonder where that idea would come from?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Remind me again how having stupid people be in charge of weapons that could potentially destroy us all is something to laugh at?! GAAH...
By destroying the entire city the small group of evil men may or may not be in? What a winning strategy.
This is one of those things that history classes 100 years from now will look back upon and someone will ask: "Why would they ever give the president so much power?" :-)
Furthermore, if North Korea had any legitimate reason to be concerned about America's intentions before (well, Iraq probably didn't help), they're certainly going to be paranoid out of their tiny little minds now. The further we go down this path, the less North Korea is going to believe it has to lose by launching a pre-emptive strike of their own, to pre-empt the American pre-emptive strike.
If you assume Iran actually meant what it said about their own nuclear technology being for peaceful purposes, you can be absolutely rest-assured they'll have no intention of sticking to that now. The only hope Iran has of NOT being nuked is to be in a position of nuking the USA.
All in all, this is a bad day for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but one hell of a siesta for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Is this really necessary? Can't we just threaten to place our enemies under the protection of FEMA? That seems to achieve the mass casualty effect just fine, and yet the environmental mess it creates will only take a few decades to clear...
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Uhhm, we didn't do this with the soviets when they had enough firepower aimed at us to level the world 3 times over.
We also have a system in place to respond in kind to wmd attack within 3 minutes with all out world-killing force.
the idea of "preemptive nuclear strike" is not just radical, it's insane.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
North Korea at the very least? Lots of places, sheesh. And there are a lot of old Soviet scientist with nothing in their wallets but nuclear warhead schematics. Come on, open your eyes a little bit.
Opening your eyes and actually using them instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some war happy people in the White House are telling you might be a really good idea indeed.
In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near.
Here's a scenario for you. Saudi Arabia is virulently anti-American and even anti-Non-Muslim. It is the seat of Wahabi Islam, a sect of Islam that calls for systematic elimination of the Shia and Sufi Muslims as well. Now, a bunch of Saudi terrorists drop a backpack nuke in NYC and kill 80,000 Americans and foreigners.
What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism? The terrorists bomb us, tens of thousands of Americans or Brits or French or Japanese, etc. die. No massive response against the popular terrorists' home base. The result is a population that sees the attacked country/ethnic/religious group as weak, vulnerable and in the case of Islamic terrorism, which is the majority of terrorism today, it is a "sign from Allah that the enemy is going to lose."
So we don't nuke Riyadh and kill a bunch of the people who gave their moral support to the enemy. This is the best option we have short of getting ourselves either into a guerrilla war or just letting the enemy kill us. And here's something that the hand-wringing pacifists will never accept: our enemy knows us and hates us. People who are as dedicated toward killing you as most terrorists are cannot and will not be reasoned with or otherwise be converted to liking you. Either they die, or you and your children die because after you're dead, chances are damn good they'll kill every last one of yours that they can get ahold of.
We have to kill people who even just strongly SUPPORT terrorism overseas if we can to drive home the point we are serious. If we don't, then many of those people will be saying "sign me up" right after the American paper tiger has been defanged by the "martyrs." The Iranian government is already openly boasting that we are weak and totally exposed thanks to our blithering idiots in government from Nagin to Blanco to Bush to almost all of the bureaucrats in between.
The threat is real, and it can indeed be better solved through the threat of military force, especially mass destruction by nuclear weapons. In 1992, the only way we were able to keep Saddam from hitting us and the Israelis with bio weapons was we told him we were prepared to fire off a few of our nuclear weapons against Iraq.
It really does suck that we are pushed to this point, but how else are we going to intimidate the governments and populations that would whole-heartedly jump into the terrorism game? Huh? I'd like to see some serious proposals that don't revolve around us sacrificing all of our rights and sending massive amounts of aid to these groups on a regular basis like some sort of tribute in exchange for not bombing us. And let's cut the bullshit. The Muslim terrorists whine and bitch and moan not just about the fact that we support Israel and have/had troops on their holy grounds, but that *gasp* Spain is actually ruled today by the Spanish and not those imperialist Moores. Repeat the same claims about Greece, Romania, a few other countries in Europe occupied by the Ottomans, India and well... you get the idea. Pretty much any country where the non-Muslims gave their Muslim overlords a swift kick in the ass right out the door.
Blame the enemy, not us. Most Americans do not want to rule the world. Hell, most Americans would really be happy if the rest of the world would just leave us alone and we could get our government to reciprocate to them. But I can say this, as much of an isolationist, live-and-let-live southerner as I am, if my girlfriend and our families were killed in the Northern Virginia area by an Al Qaeda nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care about freedom of speech or conscience in Saudi Arabia. Like many, I'd support anyone who would drive a nuclear bomb right into the middle of those fuckers dancing in the streets celebrating "The Great Satan(tm)" getting nuked.
For the love of God, terrorism is about slaughtering women and children. It is a low-key form of genocide and is beyond mere criminality. A population that supports it and encourages it doesn't deserve to be let off the hook when it unleashes that on another group.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I'm in for a thermonuclear flaming for so much as suggesting this on slashdot, but here goes:
The Pentagon is charged with defense and defense planning. Drawing up plans like this is their job. They are there to plan for every contingency and to present every option. They are also there to carry those plans out when so ordered. They are not there to carry those plans out without authorization
The United States is a second-strike nuclear power--its weapons are both so numerous and so dispersed that no single strike could easily knock out all of its retaliatory capability. Emerging nuclear powers, in contrast, are usually first-strike powers: their weapons are few and concentrated, geographically.
Given the knowledge that such an emerging nuclear power is preparing to fire its weapons on the United States or its allies, the warplanners are faced with the following choice:
Consider the costs and the benefits: a targeted, pre-emptive strike could neutralize a military target and eliminate a threat, all in a single stroke. Striking after the fact, your choice of targets is less optimal--do you hit some *other*, less-crucial part of the enemy's military infrastructure? Or do you retaliate in kind against a civilian target?
Tough choices. But somebody has to make them, eventually.
When "Death to America, death to Ireal" is chanted at the end of Irans parliamentry sessions much in the same fasion you might say "Amen" in church...do you really thing we should not take them seriously?
Life is not for the lazy.
In other words, if the USA got itself into a war that was wholly conventional, against an opponent that had no WMDs whatsoever and where no claims of WMDs were even made, but where that opponent was simply better at fighting, the President of the USA will have the right to nuke that opponent off the face of the planet.
Translated: America WILL win every war it fights, because if it loses, it'll utterly obliterate whoever beat it, and then it'll declare itself the winner anyway.
That is a very dangerous policy and doesn't dissuade places like North Korea at all. If anything, they'll now take the line that America is going to nuke them no matter what, so there is absolutely no point in holding back. If they're dead anyway, then why not pull the trigger?
That is NOT a way to make the world safer. Never play chicken with paranoid schizophrenics, particularly not after you've told them that you're prepared to cheat to win.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Probably. It's never a good idea to give people who think the end of the world would be a good thing the means to end the world.
We all very well may die because a fucking cult wants to bring about the events in their "revalations." AN ACID TRIP IN A BOOK FULL OF FAIRY TALES.
Although, if we go like that then our extinction may well be for the best . . . . .
I don't know how many of you grew up with the Cuban Missile Crisis and neighbors digging bomb shelters in their back yards; most of you probably just had scary TV specials instead. But we really don't need to put up with this kind of crap from an Administration that says it's doing it to make us *safer*.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Be careful with that word "never". It may not mean what you think it means.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
It was a project funded by DARPA. These "shells" are fired from a mobile walking tank's rail guns. Theoretically, it could fire a nuke that is untracable and therefore cannot be stopped.
Summary : Metal Gear?!?
May we can stump bush with Tic Tac Toe. He'll realize he can never win!
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Two words: Iran Contra.
Two more words: Afghan Resistance.
Prez: These New Zealanders have banned all our Nu Clear ships - what are they hiding
Aide: But they are our Allie.
Prez: they MUST be hiding WMDS.
Aide: *slap on forehead*
Prez: *Presses Button*
later....
Aide: there are no signs of WMDS in New Zealand's smoldering wreakage. the 3 remaining people over there are quite upset
Prez: See I tol you that those Nu Clear Missile would Obliterate those WMDS! My policy works, Nuke those 3 remaining NZlanders. they might know how to make a WMD.
Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
I don't know if you've ever studied the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it came about because we elected John F. Kennedy. Now, I'm not saying that Kennedy was incompetent. Hardly, just the opposite. The problem was that Kennedy was percieved as being a spoiled rich boy by Nikita Khrushchev, someone the Soviet Premiere thought he could easily push around. Well, thankfully, Khrushchev was wrong, Kennedy was willing to go to war, and the Soviet sphere didn't gain a permanent nuclear strike base just off our coast. The key to international security is to show that you are willing to fight those who threaten you, otherwise your weakness is going to be exploited for all it's worth until it's too late for you to do anything but go to war.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Thinking instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some anti-war hippy is telling you might be smart.
Sure there isn't a USSR who could take out the entire country in one shot anymore, but one or two missiles is enough. One well placed nuke could kill/injure 10 million if it took out Los Angeles county. New york city has 8 million. Two nukes, well placed, could take out 18 million people. There are 295 million people in the US. That would be 16.39% of the US population. That is literally decimation. That is 50% more than decimation.
You think New Orleans is bad? There were what, 100,000 people left when the hurricane hit? We had 2/3 days to evacuate before it hit. We had that much warning. And the city is livable going forward. Compare that to a few hours notice. Millions dead. Millions injured. The area would be worthless thanks to fallout. Some of the largest and most important companies in the US could be gone. You think the post 9/11 recession was bad?
You don't have to take out half the country in one shot. Just take out LA, New York, or another large city (Seattle, San Fran., etc). If you can hit in the MIDDLE of the US (say Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc) that would scare people even more.
North Korea, Iran, Terrorists, other states that haven't announced yet or are currently friends/neutral but could turn with an election or coup. Just because big bad USSR is gone doesn't make us safe from nuclear attacks.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
http://mediagoblin.org/
No, the only nation other than the United States with anything close to a MAD deterence capability is Russia. China, UK, France and DPRK have limited capabilities compared to the US/Russia.
Israel, India, Pakistan and others have very limited power projection ablities compared to the other Nuclear Powers.
9/11 should have dispelled that idea. Say the US nukes Iranian territory or even all of Iranian cities. (For this is to whom this policy is geared in about 10 years or so when they can attack). Do you not think that Iranians living around the world would not try to retaliate? Do you not think that most middle easterners would not try to retaliate?
Few countries would come to the US's aid if they nuked Iran. War or no war. The act is simply too repulsive. Sure, there will be official policies, but the regular people on the ground: customs official, the policeman. They will not inforce official policy.
Any country that lobs nukes will inevitably get theirs too. Not that the regular folks deserve it but they will certainly be the ones to pay the price.
Nukes are 40s technology. The time to learn to get along is now.
In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near.
Last time I checked, we had treaties with both South Korea and Japan in which case if either came under attack we would help defend them. Also last time I checked, they were both within range of North Koreas missles.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Did you even read the article you quoted. Two shells from 1988 is not "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It's more a curiosity than a motive for war, or a nuke attack.
"Poland said in a statement from Iraq that "beyond doubt the shells were from the 1980-1988 period, of the type used against Kurds and during the Iraq-Iran war."
In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger."
http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~guptaa0/barry.mov
Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
sounds like a great idea not to fuck with them then.
maybe they only chant stuff like that because the US tried to inject puppets into their nation.
maybe stop inviting the CIA to overthrow their regime.
or running stories about how their nuclear power plant is a cover for a WMD station. a nation who lied about WMDs in iraq, forged the niger yellow cake "evidence" and can say with a straight face that iraq was connected with 9-11, even after saying otherwise, doesn't deserve to believed about anything.
a nation who has 50 thousand nuclear warheads telling another nation they cannot have weapons, is about as absurd and hypocritical as it gets, especially since it's also the only country that has used 2 nuclear bombs on civilian targets. an act of terrorism by any definition of the word.
and clearly, any country that doesn't have wmd, like iraq, gets invaded. it's about time every nation on earth starts stockpiling wmd.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
In other words, not very much. Not all prisoners will ever be given the opportunity for a review - the Pentagon has already said as much and has said that it expects some to remain prisoners for life with no possibility of any court review, even on an internal level.
Those who have been "processed" have been denied knowledge of the charges against them or the evidence against them. Indeed, nobody other than the top brass and the judges themselves know if any charges or evidence even exists in these cases. That falls a bit short of a right to a hearing.
Nor have any of those "processed" been allowed to bring witnesses of any kind, challenge testimony presented, challenge the impartiality of any of the tribunal, or carry out any kind of investigative process whatsoever. They can't even question any hearsay the DoD wishes to use as "evidence".
I'm from England, and I know English history pretty well. England had a time like that, under the ruthless dictates of King John, where any person could be arrested on suspicion of an unspecified crime, on the basis of the accuser's uncorroborated "eyewitness testimony". So horrified did England become that it rose up in rebellion and demanded a written constitution (the Magna Carta).
America has a written constitution - although GWB tends to ignore it, and it hasn't been (for the most part) American citizens who have suffered - although there are exceptions. In consequence, there is virtually no chance of any kind of revolt against abuses of power. Nobody who is in a position to has enough to lose or enough to gain. Those who do - well, they're just labelled terrorists and carpet-bombed.
The whole "war on terror" is one huge unholy mess. Hey, fighting terrorism is a good idea, but you can't fight terrorism with the weapons of terror. You've got to use other methods, where at all possible. The problem is, GWB has no interest in "other methods", which makes me think that he is more interested in the fighting than in the resolving.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Slashdot has migrated from tech news to "Tech News and Anything We Can Bitch At Bush Over"
Next topic - Is George Bush adversely affecting the frame rate of graphics card?
[Insert pithy quote here]
Amazing "evidence" consists of two 25 year old artillery shells that contained cyclosarin that were purchased on the Iraqi black market.
Sounds like proof positive Saddam was up to no good, we should have nuked the bugger.
Sheesh, it seems some people still have a hard time accepting that there were no WMD found in Iraq. And no, you can't keep re-defining the word "WMD" to suit your purposes, show me physical proof of all those weapons that Colonel Powell displayed during his dog&pony show at the UN and then we'll see..
Gotta love the American education system. 18 / 295 * 100 = 6.1, not 16.39 (which would of course be exceeding the two significant figures in "18" even if it were close to the right number).
To get to 16% you would have to take out 47million.
No, the only nation other than the United States with anything close to a MAD deterence capability is Russia. China, UK, France and DPRK have limited capabilities compared to the US/Russia.
Umm. I'm not usually one to rise to the defense of Europe but I would point out that France and the UK have modern SSBNs. The Brits even have our D-5 missile. That's a pretty good deterrence force right there.
I'll grant you that China's nuclear force is a joke as far as the US or Russia are concerned. Of course that will probably change because some champ got the bright idea of walking away from the ABM treaty and giving them an excuse to start an arms race.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
China has about two dozen single-warhead missiles that can reach the US. That's hardly obliteration, though they're the old, heavy kind that are 2MT or more yield.
I did some research on this a while back. The original context was where someone asserted that a mutual exchange could destroy everything on the planet. The numbers for warheads are about two years out of date, so stats for certain weapons like the Peacekeepers are outdated (there are fewer deployed, possibly none by this point).
Throw it into the US and Russia, and the percentages jump to significant levels -- about 5.8% of Russia, and about 11% of the US. It doesn't factor in fallout, either, but as the numbers were intended to reflect airbursts, that wouldn't be as much of a probl
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
In no particular order, these are the 'Nuclear Nations':-
- France
- United Kingdom
- Israel
- India
- Pakistan
- China
- Russia
- United States of America
There is also reputed to be a fair amount of 'missing material' of which nobody knows the exact quantity or location.Frightening isn't it?
The world's gone MAD, totally MAD
Thinking instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some anti-war hippy is telling you might be smart.
I indeed happen to think war is not such a good thing to be involved in, doesn't exactly make me a hippy. What is this name calling needed for whenever anyone might disagree with the current government anyway.
Sure there isn't a USSR who could take out the entire country in one shot anymore, but one or two missiles is enough. One well placed nuke could kill/injure 10 million if it took out Los Angeles county. New york city has 8 million. Two nukes, well placed, could take out 18 million people. There are 295 million people in the US. That would be 16.39% of the US population. That is literally decimation. That is 50% more than decimation.
Just please go learn something about the effects of nuclear weapons, what Korea might have in the worst case, and what kind of damage they can do with it.
I do agree that they can cause a pretty amount of damage, that is not the point.
If you are going to be afraid of a country with nukes, then I'd take another look at Pakistan. Its current leader may not be a problem, and actually most of its population would not be either, but chances of some extremist comming to power one way or another are quite there, and then you have a country with proven nuclear ability, some access to resources for making more, own technology for delivery and a group of fanatic idiots who may try anything to get a nuke delivered.
Do something about North Korea? sure, something should have been done some 40+ years ago there actually, end the state of war between it and the USA. It is one of those 'monsters' the USA has created itself with the same kind of blindness and fear (for communism back then) that so many there are still showing today.
Since when does Nuclear Weapon == Tonka Truck? We're not talking about a little kid (presumably the US) taking toys from anyone. We're talking about the toddler's leverage against the bully with the brass nuckles. I agree that we're not handling things the way we should be, but I think that no matter who is president, there are always things that no one will like and things that half of the people will hate. What I'm deathly afraid of, and what seems to be becoming a reality day by day, is another civil war. It seems that the democrats and the republicans are getting further and further apart and at the same time increasing the hatred and the generalizations. I live in a very democrat heavy town (and in Iowa no less) and the bumper stickers, posters, newspaper articles, everything all seem to have degenerated into an us versus them thing where everyones backed into thinking the President is a schmuck with no regard for humanity nor a single shred of intelligence, or thinking that he's doing everything 100% right. The dissent is growing, the economy is going down the tubes, gas prices are going through the roof, a fair chunk of the country is now a 3rd world disaster area, and I don't see things getting better anytime soon. We're spending Billions on disaster recovery every year, if it isn't Katrina, it's Ivan or Andrew, or tornados in the midwest, earthquakes in the west, blizzards in the east. I am starting to believe that if OPEC squeezes their fist just a little tighter, the overall stress level in the country will go up just enough to bring us to the brink of some kind of internal war- perhaps not with guns however. I think that if you add up the stress of gas, race relations, democrats versus republicans, terrorism, and the job market, we're being torn apart at the seams and the terrorists are winning. I keep getting visions of $6-8+ gallons of gas, inflation, and chaos. Maybe this is all a bit of an exaggeration, but it certainly seems like things are heading for certain disaster. Anyway, for the good of all of us, please stop, research and let go of your pre-conceptions before you join into the us versus them choir.
True on UK/French nukes, especially the UK's Tridents, however they don't have that many in the general scheme of things. Four Vanguard class with 16 SLBMs each, that'd kill alot of people in city bursts, but in the scheme of MAD, it's a minor threat.
"The British-designed warheads are thought to be selectable between 0.3 kt, 5-10 kt and 100 kt; the yields obtained using either the unboosted primary, the boosted primary, or the entire "physics package". Although it owns the warheads, the United Kingdom does not actually own the missiles; instead it leased 58 missiles from the United States government and these are exchanged when requiring maintenance with missiles from the United States Navy's own pool."
I have heard rumors that authority to use atomic shells was (to be) vested in field commanders, possibly as low as the regiment level.
I think the lowest level for authorizing nuclear attacks should be Air Force Colonels, provided that their bodily fluids are pure.
All preemptive strikes are preventive, but not all preventive strikes are preemptive.
Preemption stops an action after it has been set in motion but before it has borne fruit. In order for an attack to be preemptive, the enemy must be engaged in an attack, albeit at a very early stage. When the gunfighter is going for his six-shooter, and the friend you've prudently stationed on the roof of the blacksmith's drills him with his winchester, that's preemption. When you shoot a guy in the back on the theory he might shoot you some day, that's merely prevention.
True preemption requires evidence, not of capability, not of hostility, but actual action being set in motion. Nobody who believes the self-defense is justifiable can deny that preemption is equally justifiable. But most forms of prevention are morally reprehensible.
Having a doctrine of preemption only means you prepare for the eventuality. I'd say it should be pretty uncontroversial, except that prevention/preemption distinction is one which many people aren't aware of. Unfortunately, the administration likes to blur the lines between these two things, giving mere prevention the status of preemption. The Iraq war was a preventive war, not a preemptive one, but the administration did its best to make it look preemptive.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes but why would anybody want to hurt the US? We are such nice people. We don't ever bother anybody and we are such concerned and helpful world citizens!.
Nukes are old skool. The real problem is that billions of people all over the world want to see us suffer and die. You can't just keep making more enemies every day and not expect any consequences. Those billions of people who want to see you die will figure out a way to kill you or spend you into bankrupcy trying to defend yourself.
Unfortunately nobody in the good old U S of A has any interest in making nice with people. We are intent on making ourselves as obnoxious and dangerous as possible. Sooner or later it's going to bite us in the ass.
There is a reason US was attacked instead of Canada but nobody wants to think about that.
evil is as evil does
This is actually a kind of complicated intersection of several forms of insanity. For example, Dubya's flavor is that he buys into religious forms of Armageddon, so he thinks America needs lots of nuclear bombs to join the party "properly". The neo-cons have delusions of recreating a new Holy Roman Empire, with nuclear bombs replacing the legions. Cheney is the best example of the most toys faction, as in "He who dies with the most toys wins."
In reality, might does NOT make right, and trying to sustain modern civilization with the law of the jungle is going to produce a whole lot of dead Tarzans. The more nuclear weapons one side plays with, the more weapons the other sides will want to play with, and it's the richest players who wind up with the most to lose, and the poorest players who can roll for broke. No blinking allowed.
I'm not a pacifist, by the way. I know that the nuclear genie is not going to go back into the bottle, and the only way to have real peace is if you are ready to use sufficient force against anyone who wants to become violent. However, "sufficient" does not mean "absolute and overwhelming", because there is no such thing. What the world really needs is enough good nations that are capable of working together to face down the threats--which is almost exactly the situation that existed in Iraq in the '90s.
However, I also think that the "just use of force" has an even more important aspect than keeping it to the sufficient level. That's a matter of personal attitude. The just use of force should be done with the proverbial heavy heart and in the face of true necessity. It shouldn't be imagined as a real-life version of a video game or some kind of cowboy romp, which is how most of the Rusheviks and Busheviks see it. You can actually map this all the way down to your local policeman: Of course you want your local policeman to know how to quickly and efficiently apply enough force for each situation, but I do not want a policeman who enjoys the use of force, or even one who has become indifferent to the use of it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Gentlemen, gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the war room!
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Does it make any sense at all?
... given that we now know that there was absolutely no trace of WMD's whatsoever? ... Or would you have even known how big a mistake your country had made, given that some dumbass like Bush would just tell you that the WMD's were destroyed in the blast.
.... and may just force that myth to become a reality at your expense.
Lets use a WMD in a pre-emptive strike against groups that MAY have WMD's!
How proud would you as an American be if you had nuked Iraq
Bush and his cohorts are the problem, not the answer. They are the terrorists bent on destabilizing the world's security. He is a firm believer in the book of Revelations and Armeggedon
IRAN is the new target.
Within 5 years Iran plans to have the bomb.
Iran is too big for Dubyafucker to invade in a conventional manner, without massive conscription.
Iran will be pre-emptively nuked by the time they are ready to test their first bomb. Hopefully it won't result in the immediate retaliatory destruction of the USA by the nations of the world whom this attack will anger.
The preparations are happening, this is not a troll, this is not flamebait.
Go ahead and ask your local representative why your airforce just ordered new flight simulators programmed specificaly for the topography of Iran.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
The Pentagon only gave gave him exactly what he asked for: the capability to order a "nucular" first strike.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Both policies allow pre-emptive stikes. Pre-emptive strikes are those against targets that are intending to strike you. This is "do unto others before they do unto you."
France is not saying they will only strike in retaliation - they may hit first if they think someone is about to hit them. The US is not saying they will hit without provocation - but that they may hit to stop an incoming attack before it gets started.
The problem is that the US is forsaking 60 years of carefully built credibility over the WMD issue - as though the war in Iraq wasn't bad enough. This measure (the new policy) does NOT increase American security. Nation-states already weren't going to attack us because we'd reduce them to smouldering rubble. Terrorists will not be deterred because we will never see it coming, and there is no place to productively bomb in response to a first strike.
There is a bare chance that this will make a pre-emptive strike against N. Korea legal if the President feels an attack is imminent. But it doesn't seem likely to make any meaningful difference to the other stakeholders in the N. Korea question. If the US bombs N. Korea with nukes to stop an attack, Seoul will still be gone in the morning. Is this a sign that the US does not believe that a diplomatic solution to the N. Korean WMD issue will be found?
You aren't seriously suggesting that Ollie North was committing treason by selling weapons to a declared enemy of the USA (Iran) while working for the US military are you? That would be like saying the money wasn't being raised for a good cause anyway - funding right wing terrorists in Central America. It would also be like saying that skimming off money for a personal commission was also wrong, or the current administration giving him another job after all that was wrong.
When the leading lights of the USA compare themselves to the founding fathers are they really talking about Arnold, Wilkinson and Burr?
I've been following your thread on North Korea, and well, I had to jump in.
I think you are massively uninformed about North Korea.
1. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear weapons for at least three decades. They started in the 1970's, some say as early as 1969.
2. The only reason North Korea hasn't obtained and built advanced delivery systems and more powerful warheads is because the US's "monster" is totally contained. The economic strangehold placed on North Korea has strained hard cash resources to the point where they can't even keep embassies open. They are among the poorest nations on earth, and whatever resources they have go towards military and nuclear research. This is not new.
3. North Korea would be far, far, far ahead of Pakistan if given the resourecs. Look at the economic powerhouse that is South Korea. Without the sanctions and anti-communist stance of the US and Europe since the end of the Korean War the North would be in a much better position. Imagine if they had even 50% of the economic resources of South Korea. It'd be catastrophic.
4. Whatever you think of Clinton, he bungled the handling of the nuclear position in North Korea. His the 1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact was insane. Just absurdly insane. They started work back on the program days after the ink was dry.
5. It is possible to be afraid of Pakistan and North Korea simulatenously.
6. You make it seem like North Korea is just going stop. Developing a missle that could hit just the outer most parts of the US isn't going to be the end of the day.
Signing a peace agreement with North Korea can do no good. I think you need to rethink what it would do. Ending the state of war will allow money to flow into North Korea. Right now they have natural resources that are untapped. Bringing in foreign equipnment and capital would cause a huge economic boon for the country and fill the governments pockets with cold hard cash, something it has very little of. This is country with natural gas and oil reserves but has to beg the US and others for heating fuel. That was part of the 1994 agreement.
The goal of the leaders of North Korea is to stay in power, and to live the good life. That means the people suffer, and literall a dozen or two live high. Meanwhile every penny they can grab goes towards testng missles, building and testing new equipment that we or Europeans invented in the 40's, 50's or 60's, and trying to reverse engineer things we've using for just as long.
Sorry, but I just can't believe you are on sound footing with your analysis of North Korea.
No, US policy is not shifting to resemble the French doctorine. French, Britain, and US nuclear doctorines regarding "No First Use" are all already the same, they oppose No First Use, afterall these countries all are part of NATO. US has always rejected No First Use. US policy had been one of "calculated ambiguity," that is we would be ambiguious on nuclear questions as it would contribute to our security. Secretary of Defense William Cohen in November 1998: "We think the ambiguity involved in the issue of nuclear weapons contributes to our own security, keeping any potential adversary who might use either chemical or biological [weapons] unsure of what our response would be." But there are four major problems with Calculated Ambiguity. (And this new doctorine eliminates the benefits of ambiguity, and just strengthens the case that we should not make nuclear threats.) 1. It violates The Non-Proliferation Treaty's (1995 extension conference) guarantee not to threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear use. Violations of the NPT hurt credibility in persuading countries to forgo acquisition of nuclear weapons. And Proliferation is a Bad thing. (See Scott Sagan in _Nuclear Weapons: A debate renewed_) 2. Calculated Amiguity creates a "commitment trap." If a country does threaten WMD, or does use non-nuclear WMD, then the US will be expected to use nuclear weapons, starting a nuclear war. (See Scott Sagan "The Commitment Trap" 2000 [PDF] http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20284/sagan_is_spr 00.pdf [stanford.edu] )
3. Nuclear first use contributes to the tyranny of survival, whereby any imaginable evil can be committed in the name of survival. (See Daniel Callahan _Tyranny of Survival_ 1977)
4. Nuclear first use threats underly nuclearism, an ideology that makes nuclear use thinkable and more likely. (See Lifton & Falk _Indefensible Weapons_ 1982)
(Sorry that most of these resources are off-line, but the Sagan article should keep most entertained for a while.)
Here's the stance of the 5 major nuclear power states on the question of No First Use
China has No First Use
Russia had No First Use, but revoked it in recent years, due to a lack of reciprication.
Britain and France both oppose No First Use.
(NATO Members Canada and Germany support No First Use.)
US policy is stated above.
Also India has No First Use.
For more information on US First Use Policy, see Stansfield Turner's _Caging the Genie_ 1998. Turner was of the CIA, and advocates establishing a global No First Treaty, and believes that it would be feasible.
Having studied the question of No First Use literature for about a semester, I can say that the academic literature, especially critical academic literature, is slanted in favor of a US No First Use policy, even if not recipricated.
After we spent the 1990s negotiating with Russia to destroy their nukes, Bush cancelled the funding to actually scrap the Russian arsenal. Now we'll spend even more billions building more nukes. This whole thing is totally insane. Will the madness end only in a nuclear holocaust?
--
make install -not war
It is, today, September 12. Four years and one day ago, it was September 11th, 2001, and I was in New York watching the dust cloud rise. And it's just remarkable, just stunning... I mean, who could have predicted that four years later, the most powerful nation on earth would yet to have brought bin Laden to justice for what he did? Who could have believed that instead, the administration would use lies about WMD to invade a nation with no connection to 9/11? Who would have believed that we'd be in an endless guerilla war with almost two thousand American lives lost and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. That a nation which prides itself in being a beacon of freedom would be torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and running a gulag in Cuba. And there's no end in sight to any of it. It's just disgusting. And profoundly sad. What's happened to my country? We rose up after 9-11 but somehow in the past four years, it brought us down so low, I barely even recognize the country anymore.
We shouldn't be giving this guy the authority to use nuclear weapons. If he were watching TV in my house, he wouldn't even be entrusted with the remote control. God... just, one day, I want to walk up to him. And spit in his face, and then walk away.
Yep that worked out so well for empires in the past. There's a reason why the US is hated and it isn't jealousy.
Osama Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire but he's jealous of you yeh right.
You know how the UK stopped Irishmen blowing up our cities. We spent nearly 30 years of getting ever more draconian and then after actually negotiating with the terrorists we've had virtually no trouble with them at all in the last 10.
It may turn some people's stomachs to see Gerry Adams being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but up until our ass-kisser leader dragged us into a pointless war, UK citizens didn't have to worry about being blown up anymore.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Anon so I doubt you'll even read this but morons have to be countered an all.
"It's also worth noting that while North Korea may or may not possess the ability to land a nuclear strike on the west coast of the continental US, China most certainly does, and we all know that China and N. Korea are essentially allies."
Allies? Hardy, more like China's annoying little neighbor who can't be gotten rid off. NK is tolerated since it doesn't jeopardize anything important (ie: trade with the west) and provides a buffer between SK. Also, China has more to fear from those NK nukes than anyone else except SK.
"(using tech Clinton sold them no doubt)"
Wow, how much tin foil do YOU cover your head with? OR are you simply as dense as DU? They're using Soviet technology, heck they copied decent amounts of it exactly.
"If they can put a person in orbit, they can land a warhead anywhere on earth they choose."
Not really, aiming and so on become more problematic and less accurate. In addition, such a weapon is easy to detect and potentially intercept. Right now China has 20 icbms it can lob at the West Coast, and either does or soon will have nuclear missiles on submarines (may have one, I'm not sure) which can hit more or less anywhere. It also would be committing economic suicide if it ever used them.
Politically there's no group in America more committed to Israel than the Evangelicals. Why? Because the Bible says that Jews must return to their homeland before Jesus will return:
[Jer 30:2-7] : 'For, behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah.' The Lord says, 'I will also bring them back to the land that I gave to their forefathers, and they shall possess it.'
And in Ezekiel [37:21]: "This is what the sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land."
I mean, who could have predicted that four years later, the most powerful nation on earth would yet to have brought bin Laden to justice for what he did?
Just another example of the sheer, utter incompetence of the Bush administration.
Can't find Bin Laden. Can't respond to natural disasters. Somewhere north of $400 Billion down the "war on terror" hole and it looks about as successful as the "war on drugs" started by the original sainted Republican, Ronnie "Iran-Contra" Reagan.
Boy, but he sure got the "values" crowd in this country fired up - the same people who think it's logical to bomb abortion clinics to stop the "murder" of "babies".
After beating on Clinton and Gore for every little misstep they made over eight years, the press must have been tired, because even after Katrina, they're still taking a nap. Bush could cornhole a dead boy on the White House lawn and Fox news would fawn over him for making that particular butthole safe for democracy.
Sure, let's make it policy for the man responsible (and I use the word very loosely, since he never seems to take responsibility for ANYTHING) to fire off a few nukes when he feels like it, without provocation.
I know I feel safer. Not.
The hurricane wasn't caused by policy. Obviously
The flooding on the other hand, was caused by the degradation of the surrounding swamplands, cleverly placed there by God/nature/whatever to absorb the excess water from exciting weather events
The levee system, it was forecast several years ago, was not even up to the task of resisting a smaller hurricane than Katrina. The Clinton administration had spent 500 mill on it, but funding dropped considerably under Bush.
The advance response was non-existent, the President being too busy with other affairs, and preferring to plead ignorance after the fact
Additionally, National Guard and Army troops, who would normally be called in to assist in major emergencies, were not available at this time, being elsewhere engaged.
Oh wait I see, you were being ironic. You're right, the poor levee maintenance and lack of military personnel and lack of preparatory response weren't caused by President Bush's domestic policies. They were caused by his obsession with foreign policy.
That's a very subtle and clever point you made, well done
All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Davy-Croc kett-(nuclear-device)
The Davy was a recoilless rifle that fired 1 kiloton nukes and was developed years ago. Yes, there are 155mm nuclear rounds (some are rocket propelled and laser guided) in addition to VX, blister, mine deploying, etc. Do not be surprised at the disgusting genius of weapons designers. There exist some truly horrific means of mass murder and nuclear munitions is just one. Personally nukes don't scare me as much any more. They are fairly easy to track, difficult to build and deliver and suffer from scalibility and engineering issues to make the big ones. There is also a certain stigma attached to them.
Biological weapons scare the living shit out of me. They are difficult to develop, but can be easily mass produced and delivered. They kill indescriminately and can be made self sustaining. What is worse is that to defeat them, you have to devlopment them in the first place (this is the conundrum of any weapons research).
Let's all just try to get along, okay?
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
and the Soviet sphere didn't gain a permanent nuclear strike base just off our coast
Let us discuss the Cuban Missile Crisis. The REAL reason why the Soviets went ahead to put nuclear missiles into Cuba was that the Soviet Union was merely returning a favor.
You see, the USA had already planted nuclear missiles into Turkey. Did you know that? And the location of Turkey happens to be just outside the Russian border.
So the Soviet Union was merely extending the courtesy of hauling nuclear missiles next to the other guy's border, and then having had a taste of their own medicine, USA freaked out. When the missile crisis ended, USA agreed to pull out their missiles in Turkey (a little bit delayed though, so that it wouldn't seem that it was the real reason).
The key to international security is really just common sense and respect from all parties. Hauling up nukes to someones backyard and expecting them to accept it is not common sense. Crying wolf when they do the same to you is also not common sense (since you sort of asked for it)?
For more information, have a read.
I do not moderate.
Osama Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire but he's jealous of you yeh right.
Osama bin Laden is a psychopath. But you have a point. His supporters are often wealthy too. They have no reason to envy the US.
I have traveled the world over. I have lived in Muslim nations as a non-Muslim. I have traveled to countries which have seen the brunt of US covert actions. I have never met anyone who hated *me* because I am an American. Yet many people are frustrated and even outraged at our government.
In May of 2002, I was in Quito Ecuador. I used to go to an Indian restaurant, and once I started talking with one of the owners. Turned out he was from Iraq. He asked me where I was from and I told him "Los Estados Unidos" (the US). I will never forget the look in his eyes. Not hatred or anger. But pain and sorrow. Yet I am sure he was in Ecuador not because of my country but because of trying to get away from Saddam.
We in the US are often incredibly insensitive to the suffering our country causes all over the world. The problem is that once you are hurt enough, you may start to do little things to fight back. These may involve looking the other direction when a charity you give money to spends some of its money on donations to militant and/or terrorist organizations. It may involve actually willfully aiding such organization, or it may even involve volunteering into such groups.
Yes, we are the most powerful country the world has ever known. But the hardest lesson to learn is that, to quote an old Norwegian saying, the "Sheath is for Swords." Real power is best kept in reserve, always close at hand but rarely if ever used. Ever since WWII, however, we have been militarily involved in one place or another more or less constantly. We have caused immeasurable sorrow in the world, and consequently we have earned powerful enemies. People forget the lessons of Iran, or Chile, or Guatamala.
Do a google search for September 11, 1973 and see what shows up.... The result of that action by the CIA killed *more Chileans* than Al Qaeda did on the 28th anniversery of that event (if you assume that the 1100 or so that were "disappeared" were probably summarily executed in custody.
The truth is that we are hated for the same reason that we hate Al Qaeda. We are hated just as they are for our crimes against humanity. And those of us who truly love our country have an obligation to try to turn this around.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
IANAL....
But I understand that there is this thing called "International Humanitarian Law" that includes such things as the Geneva Conventions. Real freedom fighters should confine themselves to standards that are at least defensible under interational rules of war. Those that do not are terrorists, state sponsored or not.
For example, when I look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, lets look at acts of terrorism:
* Blowing up busses
* dropping 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings
* Indescriminant razing of neighborhoods in refugee camps
* Blowing up supermarkets
* Using ICRC relief workers as human shields
* Firing on PRC medical personnel and equipment with PRG's etc.
etc...
The *only* group which has a legitimate claim not to be a group of terrorists is Tanzim. Not Fatah, Not Hamas, Not the IDF. And Tanzim is only questionably so (it depends on whether Settlers are protected noncombatants under the Geneva Conventions). So a terrorist is a terrorist.
Back to the US.
Look up "September 11, 1973" and you will see what I mean. Personally I think that if Pinochet is to be tried for his crimes against humanity than his CIA buddies should be too. Same in El Salvador, same in Guatamala, same in Ecuador, same in Iran.
Strategic nuclear weapons IMO are terrorist impliments and the use of them ultimately qualifies as a terrorist attack.
A terrorist is a terrorist. It should go without saying that we should be willing to police our own government as much as we want to fight those who perpetrate crimes against humanity (though in revenge for what we have done) against us.
Those who truly love our country have a moral duty to try and turn things around before it is too late (it may be too late anyway but we have to try). I don't pledge allegiance to the President. I pledge allegiance to the *flag.* I don't owe allegiance to the president. I owe allegiance to my *country.* This is the essence of true American patriotism, deeply rooted in a mistrust for those who run our government.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
WTF is wrong with our government?!?!?
In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. It is the responsibility of USA citizens to stop the madman in the Whitehouse. If you do not, you are part of the problem. As things stand, the majority of USA citizens that can be bothered to vote want Bush. You guys had the ability to kick him out of office last year, and you didn't. He represents you. Your fault. Do something about it.
1: Define "neocon".
I will decline to answer this because alas I feel that it is not limited to neocons.
2: Cite some specific examples of whom you are referring to.
September 11, 1973, Santiago Chile
August 19, 1953, Tehran
The overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatamala
The overthrow of José María Velasco Ibarra in Ecuador
I am sure there are others (the coup against Chavez fits the same pattern).
Also consider death-squad governments in places like El Salvador which were largely sponsored by the US. Things look better now, but I think we are going back to that same mentality of "we must make the world our slave for the sake of our security" which was prevalent in the cold war.
3: Cite some specific quotes by these people backing up your childish, absurd claims about them.
You might find the Reagan Administration's definition of communism interesting. That a government is communist if they believe that the government has an obligation to provide for the welfare of their people.
The parent is wrong in that this is not new in this country. It is just more blatant now.
4: Demonstrate that these particular fools have both the power and will to execute their idiotic claims.
Look at the examples above....
5: Demonstrate that the public support for such people is great enough that their words are likely to result in actions by others.
My point is that our history has been that of subjugating those we could, especially in our hemisphere and in the Middle East.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Oh please, spare us yet more of this ridiculous bomb them back into the stone age idiocy that fails to realise what epoch we're in and who we're dealing with. Please be absolutely, unconditionally assured that no-one in the world doubts the ability of Americans to utterly miss the point and bomb the hell out of "rogue nations", utterly unaware that they're fighting last century's kind of war. The terrorists escaped by foot and horse while you "bombed Afghanistan into the Stone Age", killing more innocent civilians than ever died in 9/11, largely for the benefit of Fox News. So it's all good; no-one doubts your ability to make this kind of dumb fool mistake, just as few now doubt that America is, indeed, a paper tiger when it comes to writing checks the electorate's stomach can't cash. Like a sustained military occupation of Iraq, for example. But, it's true, putting more power in the hands of a prat like Bush will certainly drum the point home to anyone who hasn't been paying attention to your murderous platitudes about trigger-fingers and righteous bombs.
Have they no suitcases?
Are they unable to covertly contact terrorist organizations?
Have they no legitimate-seeming cargo containers?
A missle is a rather unlikely way for a nuke to strike the US, so forgive me if I find it uncomforting that nutball nuclear powers have poor missile capability. Kinda like I'd hardly feel better to note that a grizzly bear charging me did not, in fact, have the opposable thumbs required to hold a gun---that isn't why it's dangerous.
Watch the movie 'threads' for a good run-down of a post-nuclear war world.
It's not that nuclear blasts will kill everyone. It's that 'developed' countries, especially large metropolian areas, are extremely dependant on others for their survival. Once the infrastructure is gone and panic ensues, there will be no electricity water or food. The economy will be reduced to a barter economy since faith in the monetary system is gone.
Hell, even a miniature-by-comparison disaster like New Orleans / Katrina showed signs of anarchy for a while, imagine the hell-on-earth that will erupt if not one, but several major cities are flattened.
P.S. I'm serious, get ahold of and watch Threads, it's a great movie.
"Just another example of the sheer, utter incompetence of the Bush administration."
Maybe you should consider the possibility that its not incompetence but malevolence, and that the Bush administration doesn't want to catch Bin Laden or break up Al Qaeda. When the Soviet Union collapsed the world started heading towards a dramatic reduction in military spending and decline in military threats and fear in the world. The right wingers absolutely HATED it. The couldn't stand the defense spending cuts in the U.S in particular.
9/11 was a godsend to them since not only did it allow them to reverse the defense cuts but they had an excuse to inflate defense and intelligence spending to new record levels today, and this is facing a rag tag terrorist band with few weapons, versus countering the massive armaments of the Soviet Union.
The right wing no doubt vowed that when a new threat came along to replace the Soviet Union, to justify the massive defense spending they love so much, to justify massive erosion in civil liberties they love so much, and to use as a fear mongering tool to get themselves elected, they no doubt took a vow to make sure they would do everything in their power that threat would last forever this time. There is a fair chance the current strategy is to nibble around the edges of Al Qaeda but make sure their leadership stays in tact so they can put out a video tape every six months or so to whip up a new round of fear.
The heart of the neocon philisophy is to create myths of good and evil to unite and heard the American people, American's always being good and everything they oppose being evil, hence the terms "Evil empire" and "Axis of Evil". This whole philosophy falls apart if you don't have something clearly defined, and clearly named to play the evil role, its Bin Laden on the global stage and its Al-Zarqawi in Iraq. Notice how the Bush administration uses the name Al-Zarqawi every time they talk about the war in Iraq, though in fact he probably has little to do with the vast majority of the insurgency which is based on former Baathists and Sunni's who are angry they've been thrown out of power. Al-Zarqawi is just evil role player the neocons love so much.
@de_machina
Listen, your post is well written and i'm glad you own a passport unlike 80% of us (or whatever). I do too. I've listened to anti-US tirades in bars, and the opposite. It depends on where you are and the person.
Despite all that, your post sets up a straw man, and also discounts the lust for power.
Your mistake is that you blame your own country for these issues and that isn't so. The problem isn't a US problem. The problem is human nature. No one is going to sit down and be killed or held hostage by external forces when they can do something about it, and there will always be external forces that will want to exert power over significant reaches of (or the entire) world.
Moreover, someone like OBL isn't motivated precisely by envy of the US, though that is there in terms of the power we can wield. One almost gets the impression you think desire of money is the only motivator for humankind. His attack on the US was motivated by the needs of local politics and establishing his bonafides as an enemy of the imperialist oppressor that shows up in Arab schoolbooks as the supporter of the Zionists. It was a piece of a plan to provoke revolution in his home country, more than anything else. He exploited a weakness that the Saudis have in their own ideology. He probably has Pan-Arab ambitions like a modern day Nasser, also. This is lust for power.
Explain to me exactly how anything except fighting and killing are going to get rid of a ready-made foe like that? (taking him and his minions collectively)
Leaving that aside for now, the fact that little people get ground into the dust by exercise of the power of a nation like the US. Truth - and in retrospect the Allende situation perhaps wasn't the Communist revolution that it seemed to be to people like Kissinger. Gotta love that 20/20 hindsight.
The point is that even today, the Allende thing had a meaningful realpolitik objective that we can discern. It might have been a bullshit reason. We'll never know now, though, because all anyone has is conjecture about the future actions of an Allende regime. There was a real force in the world that plotted our demise via proxy. We had lost a lot of fights against that force in the recent past (or were about to, in Southeast Asia). Those fights resounded far more strongly in importance then than they truly had. Yet, though the events in Southeast Asia were somehow unimportant to us (though they were very important to the inhabitants thereof who suffered from privation and extermination, depending on geography and timeframe), they certainly did their part to assure that the Iranians, sensing our weakness, felt few qualms about kidnapping the occupants of our embassy in 1979. Note that they didn't take over our embassy because of Mossadegh or hatred of the Shah. They took over our embassy because they could. What was Jimmy Carter going to do about it? (one can hear the laughs from the back of the audience)
The lesson to draw: Carter's 'niceness' and perceived weakness was the cause of those hostages enduring a year plus in captivity. Reagan got them out simply because they feared his reprisal should they remain captive. Fear for your own survival is a far better motivator than some abstract moral sense. In fact, the abstract moral sense barely registers in comparison.
When you recount our supposed 'evil' without giving it contextual backing, you are bashing your own country. This is why I call people like you anti-American. You'd rather see your own country humbled because of some misplaced humanitarian notion that doesn't work in the real world. That's a seditious attitude whether you understand that - or not.
The only measure of a nation at war is that you survived. I point to Dresden or Hamburg or Tokyo or even Hiroshima/Nagasaki. If the war had turned the other way, we might talk about war crimes trials for these wanton killings of civilians, rather than for concentration camps. Both the Soviets and the Germans raped, pillaged and murdered the
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
No, 70% of the country has decided to let the other 30% choose a government. If they get something they don't like, it's too late now to complain.
This bunch of 5 gallon cowboys in 10 gallon are going to leave this country in a real mess. Watch real closely once Karl Rove's think tanks come up with the catch phrase (probably "Operation Compasion" or something) who ponies up to the trough following Katrina...Haliburton and the usual suspects are already there. REALLY pay close attention when the word for the day is mentioned 14 times in a carefully test grouped speech and displayed on a big blue screen behind the President. It's worked for 6 years...why not now.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
The person saying this is white, mature, educated, well travelled, and not american.
I deliberately said "not american" as opposed to "european" or "english", because that is fast becoming the only distinction required.
the USA, that is the people, need a wake up message, perhaps a wake up message in the form of your entire congress including the president chimp being nuked.
the WTC obviously wasn't a clear enough message.
"9/11" was ___NOT___ an attack on the american people or way of life or anything else, it was an attack on USA foreign policy as driven by USA monetary policy, hence hitting two buildings full of financial institutions.
If I wanted to slap the face of the USA ___PEOPLE___ I'd fly a jet into the Statue of Liberty, the one true global symbol of all that is american.....
if this has been done it would have killed maybe a hundred people, but rocked every citizen in the USA back on their heels as a personal insult.
no way lady liberty was "Overlooked" as a possible target, no chance in hell, ergo the perpetrators werem't after slapping you all personally across the face.
3 jetliners could have been crashed into three electricity stations around new york and thrown the city into anarchy, same as new orleans, but it wasn't done.
bottom line is it is really hard to think of targets that are more clearly and obviously specifically USA financial / foreign policy related than those that were hit
and yet you lot still do not get it
bush is still there, getting worse every day.
we don't care too much if he ruins america, we're sorry for you as citizens, but then you keep voting him in and who are we to interfere?
we do care if he ruins our countries.
bush is the village psychopath, as time passes and his behaviour worstens, more and more of the villagers are going to turn against him
sure, in the ensuing fight much of the village may be razed to the ground, but some of it will survive, if we don't do something about the village psychopath he will desroy ALL of the village.
USA citizens need to wake up and ask themselves is living in a destroyed US economy, like post katrina new orleans or a kurt russell vision of new york, is the future they really want, if not, it's time to cut loose, very publicly, from the insane chimp and his money men backers.
I guess we'll tell how blinkered you all are from how quickly this message is modded as "troll", if slashdot had regional modding you'd find non USAians modding it differently....
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
I know what you mean! I love the GrandParent Poster's idea, too!
Along with killing the genuine "evil men", we should be really should be sure to kill their families, since they all almost certainly share their ideologies.
The same goes for their neighborhood, and maybe even the whole damn city. Even if the whole city, neighborhood or relatives are not guilty/evil, people really shouldn't complain because it's all for the cause of:
1) Fighting Terrorism
2) Preserving the American Way if Life
3) Making the World Safe for Democracy
4) Stopping Religious Extremism
5) Keeping that oil flowing so we can still drive our SUV's in the face of rising gas prices and global temperatrures (some say this bears a close simililarity to #2, but they're just pinko hippie communists)
6) Deposing those evil/misguided leaders who we either put into power in the first place, or aided, so that they could fight another evil/misguided leader.
So what if killing one evil man, and maybe his wife/family/brother/cousin, causes three or more to take up arms against us! So what if they aren't actually the ones who attacked us in the first place! God and morality are on OUR side! Our religious and government leaders say so!
So you can see there is no room for (intelligent) diplomacy, compromise or alternatives!
DIE! DIE! DIE! YOU EVILDOERS!
(cough cough)
ahem.
We know return to our regularly schduled broadcast of the 700 club.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Linux is not Windows